As a gaming ignoramus, I dug deep into Tim Beyers's solid analysis of Activision Blizzard
Pixar generated irregular revenue because of cyclical film releases, yet made a ton of money by making quality movies. It eschewed long-term debt and had cash on hand. However, the core of Pixar's success (and Marvel Studios') was that the people who actually made the product knew that everything depended on telling good stories -- and executed successfully.
Walt Disney
As my Foolish colleague Tim previously wrote, Activision's revenues are cyclical, and the company has no debt, tons of cash, and traditionally solid profits. The core reason for Activision's success is that the games must be entertaining and high-quality. Like Pixar, management's living up to this high bar.
There is no brand loyalty in movies or gaming. Both are discretionary expenses. The entertainment experience matter most, and only management that understands what a good game is will ultimately succeed over the long term. So far, so Up, and so far, so Guitar Hero.
Mind you, Take-Two Interactive
As long as Activision's management keeps high-quality, first-class entertainment experiences as its mandate, the company could well become an attractive buyout candidate one day. Movie studios are desperate to capture audiences' increasingly fracturing interest, and a move into video games might seem increasingly tempting to them. Along with Tim's analysis, video games' growing desirability in Hollywood's eyes yield another reason to consider purchasing Activision stock.
The price? Who knows? However, note that Activision's three-year average profit is about $150 million, just as Pixar's was when Disney snapped it up. Does the analogy end there? You'll have to heed your own call of duty and investigate further.